On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:17:04 +0000 Michael Everitt <gen...@veremit.xyz> wrote:
> On 27/10/19 16:12, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 3:06 AM James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:38:48 -0400 > >> Joshua Kinard <ku...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Why do I not like an initramfs, though? Well, for one, it complicates the > >>> kernel compiles (and it makes them bigger, something which is an issue on > >>> the old SGI systems at times). Two, it's another layer that I have to > >>> maintain. Three, it violates, in my mind, the simplicity of keeping the > >>> kernel and userland separated (e.g., kernel does kernel-y things, userland > >>> does userland-y things). > >> You make it sound like the initramfs has to be built into the kernel > >> image. It can be but it usually isn't. I suspect you know that though? > >> Admittedly that does depend on support from your bootloader. While GRUB > >> and U-Boot have supported this for years, I forget what oddball > >> bootloaders your hardware may be using. > > Though he's likely not using it, GRUB2 supports all the platforms he > > mentioned (x86, amd64, sparc64, [sgi] mips). > > > FWIW, I do believe I saw LILO mentioned .. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Early_Userspace_Mounting#Configuring_LILO Phew. ;-) Actually I was getting confused between initramfs support and device tree support. I think every bootloader has supported initramfs since forever. -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
pgpeQjlpCJruZ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
